Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Get over it already, jeez.

Its a little too late for bitching about the election... Where was this in 2004?

I know, we should just forget about it so it can happen again and again and no one is held acountable. Here's a shinny object...

The reason this article has such an effect is because the 2000 election had also been in so much question. If you have the RNC shredding Ohio Democratic voter registrations in 2004 on top of it, that would mean an entire eight year period of presidential power stolen by corporations out of the hands of citizens. It doesn't matter if you're a conservative or liberal, such an event is unprecedented in our nation's history, and has to be uncovered if it's true, no matter when it happened. What especially underlines the interest in this is how different these years have been under the Bush presidency, and how much damage has been done. The worst fiscal management ever with staggering debts and deficits we may never be able to recover from, and our lowest standing in the world since before WWII due to a reckless foreign policy that inspires individuals to start their own terror cells all over the free world. Those are just two huge CONSERVATIVE areas where Bush has been devastating to our country: fiscal responsibility and national security. I could go on and on about other reasons he is the worst president ever, but if all he did it all based on fixed elections, it is an unprecendented challenge to our democracy that we have to stand against, regardless of our political persuasion.

If there was something that could have been done about it, it would have been done. Wait, there was something done. When the Electoral College met after the election, both Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Barbara Boxer made official objections to Ohio's votes. Both congress and the senate voted to have Ohio's votes rejected. Senate voted 74–1 and congress voted 267–31. Which means even the democrates (who would greatly benefit from the rejection) voted against it.

The democrats aren't even an opposition party, just something else to look at on tv to make you think there's a choice. I just like how the article points out what a farce democracy has become in the last 40-50 years in this country. We've completely lost any control we once might've had over our government...and alot of people seem pretty ok with that.

it's simply because there's a lot to be gained from having political power, so the wrong people do the right things to get to that point, and in 40-50 years the majority of the population has become misinformed and apathetic

HailTheLeaf said:

What web site did you read that from? There are huge diffrences between the two parties (as a whole). Sometimes, the people in the parties have diffrent views on diffrent issues, but that doesn't change the fact that the parties stand for diffrent things.

I'm confused about the voting thing now... How does faulty voting equipment (which there is no proof that someone actually tampered with it, all that is known is that it was faulty) show the downfall of democracy?

I didn't read it from any website, it's called an observation. The democrats as a whole are pathetic, while there are a few who really care and try to change things, most pander to the same coroprate interests and become spineless as soon as a republican calls them "soft" on something.

If the republicans are calling them soft on something, that means that they had a diffrent view on something. They couldn't be soft and still hold the same views. So what is it, either they are the same or they are diffrent.

Just because most Democrats in Washington act like Republicans-lite, it doesn't mean the Republicans will hesitate to campaign against the "lite" part; in fact, it's their best option given the situation.

If you look at the last several years, this has been a very successful model for Republicans. Keep raining down with the anti-patriotic claims until you spook your opponent into moving closer to your position, then beat them to death by pointing out the differences that still remain. Repeat as necessary. Eventually, you create the perception that the center is moving towards you, even that's not what's actually happening in the public. Come election time, the only two candidates are Republican and Republican-lite, which gives voters no reason to turn out if they're not conservative. And so the group voters who turn out appears more conservative, even when the public as a whole is not. Consequently, this makes Democrats believe that the electorate is more conservative than it is, making them even less likely to stand firm in a liberal position. And so the cycle continues like a downward spiral.

Until you essentially have one party representing everyone's views, which is a bad idea for democracy no matter what you believe.

Exactly, good thing all those democrats stood up for themselves, our democracy, and what they supposedly stand for by letting Bush take office in 2000, then again in 2004 without making a big deal about voter fraud. Good thing they stood up after 9/11 and questioned what really took place. Good thing they stood up and refused to invade Iraq when it came time to vote. And I'm really glad they refused to pass the Patriot Act twice, protecting our rights as always. It's great that we've got an opposition party in there to make sure Bush doesn't go too far and roll back woman's rights, environmental laws, and civil liberties 40-50 years. They even care so much that we've all got healthcare don't we? Then there's that awesome energy policy they've all come up with...wait a min....

HailTheLeaf said:

oh i get it, you're mad because neither party agrees with you, so that must mean they're the same.

No, the parties have been acting the same throughout recent years in the way I described above. I don't see how the in-depth reasoning I provided can be reduced to "people are just mad".

Ultimately though, the problem is that neither party represents at least half of the country. That's a huge problem in any democracy, whether you agree the parties are the same or not.

HailTheLeaf said:

Yes this is all well and good but I need 10 decent I don't even need good but decent reasons why John Kerry would be better than George W? Any takers?

I'm still waiting to see proof that it was the republicans that rigged the election and not just faulty equipment.

Morbid_Mike said:

1. Kerry doesn't care if women want to kill their unborn babies.
2. Kerry doesn't give a fuck what the idiot religious right thinks about anything.
3. Kerry has never run a business into the ground like Bush has multiple times.
4. Kerry doesn't claim that Jesus his is biggest influence
5. Kerry had the balls to go Viet Nam instead of having his Daddy get him a cushy National Guard position that he rarely showed up to anyways.
6. Kerry supports treatment as opposed to incarceration in the moronic "war" on drugs
7. Kerry realizes that privatizing social security is a horrble idea that only benefits those who don't need the money anyway.
8. Kerry is not in bed with big oil interests. Meanwhile big business ketchup is rather harmless.
9. Kerry doesn't want to fuck up a wildlife reserve for a measly 10 year supply of oil.
10. Kerry would not have wasted billions of dollars invading Iraq.
11. Kerry can properly pronounce "nuclear".

The Jesus thing alone should be enough.

Well put. As unwilling as Democrats have been to be a strong opposition party, the fact is that in office, none of them would be anywhere near as bad as Bush. In fact, most Republicans would be better than him.

The problem with Bush is that neo-conservatives have hijacked this country for the last five years, despite the fact that no one was elected running on neo-con policies; if anything Bush ran against them, criticizing nation-building in the 2000 debate. So the dilemna of the Bush Presidency goes way beyond Republican vs. Democrat. Most Republicans would have found the war on terror more important than nation building in Iraq. Most Republicans would care remotely about deficits and spending. Instead, we end up with Ann Coulter meets Alfred E. Neuman as our President.

Morbid_Mike said:

What Josh Martin said...No way would Kerry have fucked things up this badly, but either way you still only had the choice between a douche and a giant turd.

HailTheLeaf said:


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

You fuckin' kill me....you are such a fucking retard.....you and Josh should get married and have Communist Alien babies. You 2 could at least form a band called "Communist Alien Babies." That might be cool......hmmmmmmmmmmmm

HailTheLeaf said:

thanks, now bend over so i can ram it up your ass

HailTheLeaf said:

Why do I always get the feeling your threads are based on assumptions and conjecture, then you have people who are actually well read and know what they're talking about cover your ass?

You got your politics from a South Park episode. Hooray for you.

Man_of_the_Century said:

Proof? who needs proof when you can say really fantastic stuff! I'm no fan of Bush, but the Bush bashers are retarded

Lamp said:

Although if you accept that theory, it does seem odd that she would somehow reach the exact same conclusions on this issue as a person who quote unquote knows what they're talking about, ahead of most of the country and many vocal people on this board? Is that just dumb luck? I certainly don't agree with HTL on everything, but one must admit, if she has the ability to come to the same conclusions as an informed person using only assumptions and conjecture, that would be quite impressive.

I must not be informed, my magic 8 ball was wrong again.